All right. In your opinion he didn't. I think he did. I have no idea why you think that.

If you showed someone Henry Cavill as Charles Brandon in The Tudors and then as Kal-El do you think you'd get the reaction "Oh my God! No way" or "Yeah, I've got eyes"?

Do you think it would be the same reaction as 10 Things I Hate About You and The Dark Knight for Heath Ledger? Or Tom Hardy as Stuart Shore and Bane?

Henry did not "disappear" into Superman, it was still quite obviously, Henry Cavill as Superman. I consider an actor having "disappeared" into a role, when you literally cannot tell it is them, because then the performance truly isn't about the actor, only the character.

I'm not saying he's bad, he was fine. But to say he disappeared into the role is a stretch too far.

Quote:

And you can make your point without the gif. I'm not even sure what it's suppose to mean. Are you offended? If so, sorry. I said it was just my opinion. Or does it mean you're bored? Then we don't have to talk about this. Does it mean I'm some sort of uncultured peasant? I don't know.

Any, none or all of the above

Quote:

And I don't know what you mean about Radcliff.

Daniel Radcliffe is pretty much exclusively recognised as Harry Potter. So surely that means he's so good as an actor, people forgot he was acting.

If you showed someone Henry Cavill as Charles Brandon in The Tudors and then as Kal-El do you think you'd get the reaction "Oh my God! No way" or "Yeah, I've got eyes"?

Do you think it would be the same reaction as 10 Things I Hate About You and The Dark Knight for Heath Ledger? Or Tom Hardy as Stuart Shore and Bane?

Henry did not "disappear" into Superman, it was still quite obviously, Henry Cavill as Superman. I consider an actor having "disappeared" into a role, when you literally cannot tell it is them, because then the performance truly isn't about the actor, only the character.

I'm not saying he's bad, he was fine. But to say he disappeared into the role is a stretch too far.

Well, I was not talking about physical appearance at all. I was talking figuratively about how an actor embodies a character. Of course people know it's Cavill based on looks. I meant he acted like how Superman would act, as written in the movie. And I thought his performance was about the character not the actor. That was my whole point. Obviously you disagree and that's fine. But it doesn't make my opinion any less valid. I saw Superman played well. It's not a stretch for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Any, none or all of the above

Umm, ok. If it means any/all of those, that's rude and uncalled for. I wasn't being rude to you. If it means none, then why post it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Daniel Radcliffe is pretty much exclusively recognised as Harry Potter. So surely that means he's so good as an actor, people forgot he was acting.

He is a good actor and played the role well, IMO. But he's been somewhat typecast. But typecasting can happen for a number of reasons. It can mean that an actor played a role so well, they are seen as being that character in real life. It can also mean that role is the only one they have ever played and/or been noticed for. Or it can even mean that's the only role they were ever good at. I've never thought about which of those applies to him.

I think "disappear" might be the wrong word. I wouldnt say he disappeared into the role of Superman in the sense that Henry Cavill was unrecognizable. Because it was still simply Henry Cavill playing Supes. But the accent was very good, and he really did feel like 100 percent Superman. I just thought "ya that's Superman im watching" while Bruce could end up feeling like "Yep, Affleck is there playing Bruce Wayne".

Usually the really famous actors can only disappear if they transform themselves physically + the accent. Bale, etc have pulled this off. Affleck is super famous AND he's already a guy who looks like Bruce Wayne. So i just dont see him losing himself completely. It will still feel like Affleck written all over it.

You cant say that Cavill seems like Superman in other roles. At least not the ones ive seen. So i think you're both right ^

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

Umm, ok. If it means any/all of those, that's rude and uncalled for. I wasn't being rude to you. If it means none, then why post it?

How does poops and giggles grab you?

Quote:

He is a good actor and played the role well, IMO. But he's been somewhat typecast. But typecasting can happen for a number of reasons. It can mean that an actor played a role so well, they are seen as being that character in real life. It can also mean that role is the only one they have ever played and/or been noticed for. Or it can even mean that's the only role they were ever good at. I've never thought about which of those applies to him.

There's your explanation for Henry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

I think "disappear" might be the wrong word. I wouldnt say he disappeared into the role of Superman in the sense that Henry Cavill was unrecognizable. Because it was still simply Henry Cavill playing Supes. But the accent was very good, and he really did feel like 100 percent Superman. I just thought "ya that's Superman im watching" while Bruce could end up feeling like "Yep, Affleck is there playing Bruce Wayne".

Usually the really famous actors can only disappear if they transform themselves physically + the accent. Bale, etc have pulled this off. Affleck is super famous AND he's already a guy who looks like Bruce Wayne. So i just dont see him losing himself completely. It will still feel like Affleck written all over it.

You cant say that Cavill seems like Superman in other roles. At least not the ones ive seen. So
i think you're both right ^

Very diplomatic, and probably the best way to end the discussion before bashing/hater/troll or biased/blind and etc start to come out.

I think "disappear" might be the wrong word. I wouldnt say he disappeared into the role of Superman in the sense that Henry Cavill was unrecognizable. Because it was still simply Henry Cavill playing Supes. But the accent was very good, and he really did feel like 100 percent Superman. I just thought "ya that's Superman im watching" while Bruce could end up feeling like "Yep, Affleck is there playing Bruce Wayne".

Usually the really famous actors can only disappear if they transform themselves physically + the accent. Bale, etc have pulled this off. Affleck is super famous AND he's already a guy who looks like Bruce Wayne. So i just dont see him losing himself completely. It will still feel like Affleck written all over it.

You cant say that Cavill seems like Superman in other roles. At least not the ones ive seen. So i think you're both right ^

Maybe it is the word disappear people are having trouble with. But what I mean by that is that, like you, I thought, "Ya, that's Superman." For 2 reasons: Cavill physically looks like the character and he acted like the character.

And some famous people can do it. I think DiCaprio, Daniel Day Lewis, and Bale can do it.

And I don't think he seems like Superman in other roles. In the Tudors, he seemed like the Duke of Suffolk. He seemed like the character he was hired to play. Hence, why I think he's a good actor.

He certainly didn't disappear. Disappearing as an actor means that you dont see Henry Cavill the actor that we think we know already, as well as in comparison to the other roles we've seen him do. Cavill isn't big enough to really make such a claim. But he also didn't just vanish. Ledger did for Joker. Bale did it in quite a few films already. Deniro used to do it in his prime. Hardy did it for Bane. On and on. But not Henry.

But i never thought of him at all during his time as Superman/Clark Kent. And that's a good thing. There were no distractions. You feel that way about Hemsworth. They just fit.

I think it all depends on his fame in the coming years. When we see him in his next few films then see him in a later JLA movie or something...we'll be able to tell if he truly loses himself in Superman's character.

But compared to Tudors, Immortals, that movie he did with Bruce Willis lol. He's still the Cavill. He always has this good looking dude + humble guy thing goin'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsKent26

Maybe it is the word disappear people are having trouble with. But what I mean by that is that, like you, I thought, "Ya, that's Superman." For 2 reasons: Cavill physically looks like the character and he acted like the character.

And some famous people can do it. I think DiCaprio, Daniel Day Lewis, and Bale can do it.

And I don't think he seems like Superman in other roles. In the Tudors, he seemed like the Duke of Suffolk. He seemed like the character he was hired to play. Hence, why I think he's a good actor.

I guess that's a good point, when i think about it.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

He's played other roles well. See post to Shauner. He was also good in a couple lesser known movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Very diplomatic, and probably the best way to end the discussion before bashing/hater/troll or biased/blind and etc start to come out.

I'll take this to mean you're done talking about this (which is fair enough and I'll respect that by not making any more replies to our discussion here after this post) or think my opinions are those things you listed, (which is unfortunate because I didn't intend for them to be those things).

He certainly didn't disappear. Disappearing as an actor means that you dont see Henry Cavill the actor that we think we know already, as well as in comparison to the other roles we've seen him do. Cavill isn't big enough to really make such a claim. But he also didn't just vanish. Ledger did for Joker. Bale did it in quite a few films already. Deniro used to do it in his prime. Hardy did it for Bane. On and on. But not Henry.

But i never thought of him at all during his time as Superman/Clark Kent. And that's a good thing. There were no distractions. You feel that way about Hemsworth. They just fit.

I think it all depends on his fame in the coming years. When we see him in his next few films then see him in a later JLA movie or something...we'll be able to tell if he truly loses himself in Superman's character.

But compared to Tudors, Immortals, that movie he did with Bruce Willis lol. He's still the Cavill. He always has this good looking dude + humble guy thing goin'.

I guess that's a good point, when i think about it.

Ok, forget the word disappear. He embodied Superman. Better?

And I'm not trying to say he's the best actor ever. I was talking specifically about Superman. IMO, he nailed the role and gave a great performance. He was also very good in the Tudors, Count of Monte Cristo, and I Capture the Castle. And he did the best an actor could do with Immortals' crappy script. Watch his acting in the final fight with Mickey. Good stuff. But he's had his troubles too and bad performances (Cold light of Day).

And sure, he has more work to do. My point it that he's a good actor that gave a great performance in one movie, some good performances in other movies and a tv show, and was bad in Cold Light of Day.

He needs more work to keep improving. And I'm eager to see him as Supes again.

i think it becomes more of an issue the more famous they get. that's a problem the already famous guys have. that's one of the things that ddl has going for him too. that and being an obsessive genius and such.

Maybe it's just me, but no actors "disappear" for me in any role unless they're in some heavy makeup. Nor do I really care if they do.

This. It gets even harder to see actors as "disappearing" when you learn and recognize the elements and nuances of the craft. Because it's not about that anymore, and becomes more of a gray area, with both logical and emotional components.

Hence all the fanboy love for unknowns or actors who aren't A-list. Though just because the dude is only known for doing plays or indie flicks doesn't mean he's good either.

__________________
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses. - Henry Ford
-----------
Who the **** makes a movie and while planning it is like, "you know what this needs...is some Greg Kinnear."

For me "disappear' means that from one role to another, you can't see anything from the past character. Ledger EMBODIED the Joker, he was brilliant. But he would have to be in another, completely different role without ever showing traces of the Joker for me to say he's "disappeared" into the role.

I think Heath, at times, overdid it to the point where people might become MORE aware it was a performance.
"Disappear" is really just shorthand for "they did such a job in the role that I forgot I was watching an actor for a while".

But I doubt there's ever been an actor who "disappeared" for everyone in a particular role.

Overdid? Well, maybe, but that is entirely appropriate to the character of the Joker, whose personality has always been the very definition of "Over the top". I would say Ledger definitely disappeared into that role.
EDIT: I would also add that even if Heath's work in the movie came across as an obvious performance, that too is appropriate to the character, as the Joker has always acted as though he was performing in front of an audience. He has "performed " in front of literally captive audiences (like tied up and gagged type captive) a number of times and a common tactic of his is the interruption of TV broadcasts to put on his own psychotic TV shows. The Joker has always been a major show-off.

__________________
Little fly upon the wall,
Ain't you got no friends at all?
Wanna see God?
*splat*

For me "disappear' means that from one role to another, you can't see anything from the past character. Ledger EMBODIED the Joker, he was brilliant. But he would have to be in another, completely different role without ever showing traces of the Joker for me to say he's "disappeared" into the role.

I get what you mean and that is a factor I judge actors on too. I didn't see the Joker in his other roles. Did you see Joker in Broke Back Mountain and 10 Things I Hate About You?